We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Xenophon voted on Senate electoral reform
How Nick Xenophon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should change the laws governing Senate elections to allow voters more direct control over the flow of preferences, whether they vote above or below the line
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which Nick Xenophon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Xenophon on this policy.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
17th Mar 2016, 5:21 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
17th Mar 2016, 1:30 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
17th Mar 2016, 12:58 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - in Committee - Agree to the bill |
absent | Yes |
2nd Mar 2016, 11:45 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Read for the first time |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which Nick Xenophon could have attended.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Nick Xenophon was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.